| name | geo-content |
| description | Content quality and E-E-A-T assessment for AI citability — evaluate experience, expertise, authoritativeness, trustworthiness, and content structure |
| version | 1.0.0 |
| author | geo-seo-claude |
| tags | ["geo","content-quality","eeat","citability","ai-content","topical-authority"] |
GEO content quality and E-E-A-T assessment
Purpose
AI search platforms do not just find content — they evaluate whether content deserves to be cited. The primary framework for this evaluation is E-E-A-T (Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness, Trustworthiness), which per Google's December 2025 Quality Rater Guidelines update now applies to ALL competitive queries, not just YMYL topics. Content that scores high on E-E-A-T is dramatically more likely to be cited by AI platforms.
Two lenses:
- E-E-A-T signals — does the content demonstrate real expertise and trust?
- AI citability — is the content structured so AI platforms can extract and cite specific claims?
Operational protocol
- Fetch the target page(s) — homepage, key blog posts, service/product pages
- Evaluate E-E-A-T across the 4 dimensions (25 points each) using rubrics in
signals.md
- Assess content quality metrics (word count, readability, paragraph/heading structure, internal linking) using
scoring.md
- Check for low-quality AI content signals (see
signals.md)
- Evaluate content freshness and topical authority modifier (
scoring.md)
- Score and generate
GEO-CONTENT-ANALYSIS.md using the template in templates.md
References
signals.md — per-signal scoring rubrics for all 4 E-E-A-T dimensions, plus AI content quality signals (low/high)scoring.md — word count benchmarks, readability, paragraph/heading/linking rules, freshness scoring, topical authority modifiertemplates.md — GEO-CONTENT-ANALYSIS.md output template
Final scoring (0-100)
| Component | Weight | Max points |
|---|
| Experience | 25% | 25 |
| Expertise | 25% | 25 |
| Authoritativeness | 25% | 25 |
| Trustworthiness | 25% | 25 |
| Subtotal | | 100 |
| Topical Authority Modifier | | +10 to -5 |
| Final Score | | Capped at 100 |
Interpretation
- 85-100: Exceptional — strong AI citation candidate across platforms
- 70-84: Good — solid foundation, specific improvements will increase citability
- 55-69: Average — multiple E-E-A-T gaps reducing AI visibility
- 40-54: Below Average — significant content quality and trust issues
- 0-39: Poor — fundamental content strategy overhaul needed
